思考与写作paulgraham.com
PG 的罕见问答
PG's Rarely Asked Questions
2011 — 2018，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这是 Paul Graham 的《Rarely Asked Questions》页面，以问答形式讨论一些他很少被问到但愿意展开的话题，例如学历史的阅读路径、哲学、如何避免成为不写代码的经理、怎样当老师，以及给编程语言加宏等。回答带有强烈的 PG 个人视角，并非标准 FAQ。
为什么经久不衰：它经久不衰，因为文中是 Paul Graham 对教育、管理、哲学与编程的典型直率判断，既提供鲜明观点，也持续引发反驳和讨论。
HN 评论精选
批评 PG 的哲学回答空洞且傲慢，并由此质疑其跨领域权威。
他对哲学那个带倾向性的回答，简直会招来又一次《Dabblers and Blowhards》式的顺路抨击。这个问题“很少被问到”并不奇怪：随便读一本平庸的哲学导论或找助教聊聊，都比把这种大二学生式的回答当成对整个领域的合理回应学到得多。他说哲学书要么是无关紧要的技术内容，要么是作者自己都没完全理解的抽象堆砌（如黑格尔），还说学古代哲学更像看事故报告——这些说法自鸣得意、随意且空洞。有人推荐罗素的《西方哲学史》，这至少能帮你入门（尽管对欧陆哲学有偏见）。每当 PG 谈到我较了解的领域（哲学、政治、经济），他的说法都显得浅薄、幼稚、迎合大众，这让我怀疑他在我不太懂的领域（历史、绘画）的专长。
onan_barbarian查看英文原文
The tendentious answer on philosophy is an invitation for what would be another "Dabblers and Blowhards" drive-by shooting. It's not enormously surprising that this question is 'rarely asked'. One would learn a lot more about philosophy ("what questions are these guys asking?" "what are some of the answers they've come to?") from even a mediocre introductory text or a chat with a TA/tutor, than by assuming that this rather sophomoric answer represents a reasonable response to the entire field. Calling it 'sophomoric' doesn't properly engage with the claims, but the claims are so smug, random and content-free: "Books on philosophy per se are either highly technical stuff that doesn't matter much, or vague concatenations of abstractions their own authors didn't fully understand (e.g. Hegel)... It can be interesting to study ancient philosophy, but more as a kind of accident report than to teach you anything useful." ... that I can't find anything remotely meaningful to engage with. Someone recommended Russell's History of Western Philosophy as an option; this isn't bad (although its treatment of Continental philosophy is hopelessly biased, it would still be enough to get you oriented). The fact that whenever PG makes statements on some area I understand more about (philosophy, politics, economics) seem to be incredibly shallow, juvenile crowd-pleasers, makes me wonder at his expertise in areas that I don't know much about (history, painting).
反驳 PG：不写代码的管理者未必差，程序员的核心能力可以迁移到管理。
我不同意。我见过很多（尤其在大企业里）从开发做起、后来工作越来越抽象的人；他们并非坏人，反而很出色。编程对我来说不是必须持续写才能保持的能力，而是反映分析性、系统性思维等基本素质；就像学乐器，学会后隔三年再碰代码、框架或技术，也能看懂并继续。优秀程序员的特质在管理等领域同样有用；大公司的结构确实会促使人们转向管理。
sthlm查看英文原文
The pointy-haired boss is a manager who doesn't program. So the surest way to avoid becoming him is to stay a programmer. What tempts programmers to become managers are companies with old-fashioned corporate structure, where the only way to advance in salary and prestige is to go into management. I have to disagree with that. I've met many people, especially in larger enterprises, who started in development but then became more abstract over time. They weren't bad people, in fact, they were excellent at their job. Programming to me has never been something that has to be continually pursued in order to stay fluent or able, but merely something that reflects your more basic skills and talents. It's like playing a musical instrument. Almost anyone can learn playing the guitar, but it takes a special talent to excel at it. For the guitar this requires hearing, sense of rhythm, and others; for programming, this is analytical thinking, systematic thinking, and more. Some people will try to program but never be really good at it. I studied with people like that. It's not their fault, their skills are just in another area. Some others are great at it. Once they learned, it doesn't matter if they don't develop anything for 3 years; after their break, they look at a piece of code / framework / technology, understand what it does, and continue programming. And the traits that make you a good programmer help you in other fields, even management. Yes, large corporations have structures, but we need structure to manage them. And we need managers. And a manager who was a distinguished developer will be much better suited for leading a team of developers -- even if he doesn't program any longer. This is a valid career path, and an interesting one at that. My general opinion is that if you want to stay a programmer, find yourself a role where you can do that. If not, don't bother pursuing programming at all costs. It won't lead you in the right direction.
用个人经历质疑 PG 的“好老师”标准，强调放手与自愿探索。
我认为他的第 1 点只适合 Paul Graham 自己，而不是好老师的通则。有些老师会因我缺乏学习劲头而点名批评，反而让我更疏离；我更能从那种先介绍想法、然后放手让我们自己玩的人那里学到东西——玩必须是自愿的。我最尊敬的老师同时教物理和编程，他标准不高，这让我自由探索（用尺子搭金字塔、下棋、乱读编程语言），我至今和他保持联系。我也喜欢讲课时跑题的老师；而有个老师不让我课上读书，我只好退掉那门数据管理课。至于第 2 点，有位生物老师很热情、也符合第 1 和第 3 点，但他曾在暴怒中把尺子拍断，还说我们都该像中国人那样被打。
__s查看英文原文
> I'm about to become a teacher. How can I be a good one? I think his point #1 is what was good for Paul Graham, rather than what makes a good teacher. Some teachers would try single me out for my lack of work ethic, & it would further disengage me. I learnt better from who would expose us to ideas, & then leave us to our own devices, play makes for good learning, & play must be voluntary. The teacher I respected most taught both Physics & Programming in my senior years ( https://ca.ratemyteachers.com/michael-harwood/579411-t ). He didn't have high standards. Which meant I was free to explore whatever I felt like, building pyramids out of rulers, playing chess, reading about random programming languages. Still keep in touch with him. I liked teachers who would go off on tangents during a lecture. Whereas I had to drop Data Management & Probability when the teacher wouldn't allow me to read in class As for #2, there was a biology teacher who was a good teacher, very passionate, very much meets #1 & #3, but he broke a ruler while smacking it on a desk in rage, & he would tell us we all needed to be beaten like the Chinese: https://ca.ratemyteachers.com/bela-nagy/452449-t
高度评价 PG 独立于硅谷主流的极简思考，并推荐其随笔。
我很想念 PG。我送出去很多本《黑客与画家》，还转发过更多 PDF（盗版，抱歉，但算是做好事），原因和基甸会放圣经、摩门教徒送文献一样：我想把人“转化”到他那种客观、不留情面、极简的思考和写作方式。不幸的是，很多人把他的路数等同于“硅谷黑客型的人自以为能回答世界所有大问题，而且答案全错又天真”，如今嘲笑这种形象很流行。但这些人没抓住重点：PG 有趣恰恰因为他过去（现在也？）那么不同于硅谷主流思考。读读他的《What You Cannot Say》，可作为当下歇斯底里思想状态的解药；《What You'll Wish You'd Known》应列为全球高中生必读。算不算一个想当创始人的英雄崇拜？也许。自己去读那些文章吧。
Jun8查看英文原文
I really miss pg. I have given away many copies of Hackers and Painters and have forwarded many more pdf copies of it (pirated, sorry, but for a good cause) due to exactly the same reason that Gideons place their book in hotel rooms or YW's give away their "literature": I was trying to convert people to his way of objective, no holds barred, minimalist way of thinking/writing. Unfortunately, his approach has been equated by many to the "SV hacker types have an answer to all world's great problems and they're all wrong and naive" school of thought, the belittlement and maligning of which is very much in vogue nowadays. But these people miss the point. pg is interesting precisely because he was (is?) so different from mainstream SV thinking (compare&contrast sama's writings and his essays, not saying one is better but they are quite different). Read his essay "What You cannot Say" (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) as an antidote to current hysterical state of thought, "What You'll Wish You'd Known" (http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html) should be required for all high school students around the world trying to shape their lives. Hero worship from a founder-wannabe? Perhaps. Read the essays yourself and find out.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
保持你的身份认同足够小
Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
Paul Graham 2009 年的一篇短文：人一旦把某个话题当成自己身份的一部分（宗教、政治、编程语言皆然），讨论就会退化成站队和争吵，因为此时争论的不再是事实，而是"我是谁…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021paulgraham.com编辑精选苏格拉底式教学法：通过提问而非讲授来教学
The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling
记录了作者用纯提问的方式，引导一群小学生从零推导出二进制计数法的课堂实验，展示了苏格拉底式教学法的惊人效果。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022garlikov.com你不能说的话
What You Can't Say (2004)
Paul Graham 2004 年的经典文章，探讨那些因道德时尚而不能公开说出的观点。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2014–2022paulgraham.com编辑精选龙暴君的寓言（2005）
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant (2005)
哲学家 Nick Bostrom 于 2005 年写的一则寓言：一条每天吞噬数千人的巨龙（隐喻死亡与衰老）长期被人类当作不可抗拒的自然规律接受，直到有人提出并最终用导弹将其杀死，…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021nickbostrom.com编辑精选现实有着惊人的细节量
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
2017 年的博文指出，现实远比我们以为的充满细节：我们习惯用简化的心智模型看世界，直到真正动手做事（比如作者举的造楼梯例子）才发现处处是未曾预料的细节。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2018–2025johnsalvatier.org编辑精选